Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1665 - DELHI HIGH COURTPrior sanction/ permission from the Government of India before registration of the FIR - Statutory bar under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Illegal gratification/bribe - What has been alleged by the complainant is that he was coerced, intimated and lured to part with certain monies for promise of providing him relief from repeatedly being called for investigation by the investigating officer Mr. Devinder Kumar in RC 2017 and finally to be let off the hook. HELD THAT:- Section 7 of PC Act, stipulates that any public servant who obtain or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person an undue advantage with intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to cause the forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant would have committed an offence under the said section. Even the act of a public servant to perform to such improper or dishonest public duty, including for a reward, is a punishable offence under the said section. In the aforesaid section, the element of threat or coercion is not specifically mentioned. The said section does not necessarily cover the element of threat and coercion as alleged by the complainant in the present case. According to the Illustration to Explanation (i) of section 7 of the PC Act, a person would be guilty of offence under the said section if he asks a public servant to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. The nature of the offence contemplated under section 7 of PC Act is different. The complexion or nature of a case depends on its essential ingredients – the facts. If the allegations are over-whelming by under the IPC, then the case will be so construed. Whether the petitioners/ public servants were at all involved in the offence would be known only after a thorough inquiry by the investigating agency. No doubt, registration of the FIR and the corollary investigation would be a cause for much concern, stress and embarrassment for any honest public servant and others related to him. Nevertheless, where a cognizable offence is made out, the law must take its course. For the sake of public servant and indeed for all concerned, it is best that the investigations are conducted expeditiously and the integrity of the public servant which comes under a cloud because of the investigation is either restored or determined as per law - Nothing much turns upon the fact that the FIR has been registered under the repealed section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act as well; the said section would be redundant. Nevertheless section 120B IPC and Section 7, 7A and 13(2) of the PC Act along with other provisions of the IPC which have been subsequently added to the FIR/RC 2018 would continue. Recording of statements - HELD THAT:- The appointment of the additional IO for recording of statement of the complainant on 04.10.2018 under section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be stated to be illegal. The petitioners‟ contention that once the statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the CBI ought not to have waited for the Sana‟s complaint of 15.10.2018 for registration of RC 2018, too is untenable. The grounds of malafides of Respondent no.2 in registering the FIR: RC 2018, are not made out. Nor can the allegations against the petitioner be conclusively ruled out at this stage - Petition dismissed.
|